“For how can freedom roam the streets if faith stays hidden in a corner?”
In political terms, secularism refers to the separation of government institutions from religious institutions and religious dignitaries. While the term itself is a borrowed concept from the Western milieu, which typically propounded the separation of the State from the Church, the Indian context has been altered to befit the political and social realities of India. The Indian Constitution, in its prolific wordings, elucidates secularism as the “harmonious coexistence between different religions and the active intervention of state authorities for the welfare of minority religions.” In a land of cosmic proportions of diversity, the iteration of the term “secular” in the Indian Preamble in 1976 was deemed an “inevitability” to keep the Indian spirit of democracy alive.
In recent years, however, several legal petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court of India seeking the removal of the words “secular” and “socialist” from the Preamble, inserted in 1976 by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment ratified during the peak of Indian Emergency. The petition, signed by Balraj Singh, Karunesh Kumar Shukla and Pravesh Kumar, stated that in a democratic setup, citizens cannot be bound to accept a particular ideology. Furthermore, the petitioners questioned the intentions behind the explicit wording of the term in the Preamble. Several academicians have cited it to be an appeasement in the name of “vote bank politics” during the Emergency period – propaganda adopted to give the Indian National Congress (Organization) Party a “secular” and “socialist” credential to gain more votes. In January 2020, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh leader J Nandakumar asked the government to reconsider the implementation of the word “secular” in the Indian Preamble, claiming that secularism is a “western, Semitic concept.”
From a historical perspective, it is worthy of note that the founding fathers of the Indian Constitution were opposed to the notion of explicitly stating the terms “secular” and “socialist” in the Indian Constitution. The seventh volume of the proceedings of the Constituent Assembly Debates mentions that on 15 November 1948, Prof. K. T. Shah moved an amendment to incorporate the words “secular, federal and socialist” in Clause 1 of Article 1 of the Indian Constitution. While responding, the Father of the Indian Constitution, Dr B. R. Ambedkar reflected that, “Constitution is a mechanism for the purpose of regulating the work of the various organs of state. What should be the policy of the state, how the society should be organized in its social and economic side are matters which must be decided by the people themselves according to time and circumstances. It cannot be laid down in the Constitution itself, because that is destroying democracy altogether.” While Ambedkar’s words have been twisted by several political parties to serve their interests, a deeper and more contextual probe reveals that the proceedings of the Constituent Assembly took the secular undertone of our republic as axiomatic, without any intention of making India a theocratic state. Most importantly, the amendment to make secularism explicit was considered redundant since the freedom granted through the incorporation of Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy exemplify the fact that socialist principles of justice and equality were deeply embedded in the Indian Constitution.
Fundamentally, while religious disparities constituted the chief source of public disharmony during much of the 20th and part of the 21st century, data revealed shows that more number of hate crimes committed today are based on individual incidents and caste discriminatory acts instead of communal clashes, with the former being nearly 6 times more prevalent than the latter (Statista, Identity of Hate Crimes). Taking cognizance of this data, and bearing in mind that the Constitution necessitates amendments based on the political and social realities of the country, the concept of “pluralism” deems more suitable for contemporary actuality. Pluralism as an ideology envisages a society where many beliefs, faiths, religions, cultures, traditions and practices exist without any friction or violence. It propagates substantive representation and celebrates the diversity of people expressed through ideas, languages, religions, races, and others. As India ushers in the age of modernity, both technological and psychological, the need of the hour stipulates a broader concept than that propounded by secularism, which, at its core, signifies “tolerance of different religions” rather than mutual respect for all individual and communal beliefs, as espoused by pluralism.
With the onslaught of “Anti-Citizenship Amendment Act” movements throughout the length and breadth of the nation, “secularism” has become the clarion call of most protesters to abolish such detestable and discriminatory decrees, which most citizens and politicians alike have advanced as the exemplary evidence for the essentiality of “secularism” in the Preamble. However, the revered wordings of the Constitution should have the ability to respond to most contemporary circumstances rather than individual instances such as the Anti-CAA movements. To give an instance, the contentious issue of imposition of the Hindi language and the various movements generated against it, particularly in the southern states of India, will garner no support from the ideology of “secularism” as compared to the inclusive ideology of “pluralism.” In conclusion, as India climbs higher on the ladder of progression and enlightenment, its Preamble requisites a more inclusive perception of granting freedom to all convictions and customs, for the simultaneous and holistic advancement of the totality of society.
References:
1) “Secularism in the Indian Context”; Law and Social Enquiry, Volume 38, Issue 1 (2013) by D. D. Acevedo; doi:10.1111/j.1747-4469.2012.01304.x
- Harshita Khaund
BA (H) Political Science
(Edited by Malayka and Pallavi)
Comments